X Might Be Ready For IPV6

makapuf writes "According to linuxtoday, the X Consortium has published enhancement proposals to let X and IPV6 interoperate. This is surely a relief for the masses here that longed for X support for IPV6. Or the contrary? The proposal can be found here."

Comments

Perhaps

[fireboy1919]

I can think of what that will be like.

"Hey...X doesn't work with IPv6. I'll just tunnel it through an IPv6 ssh tunnel. Problem solved."

I guess I won't have to worry much about that day.

Besides, if you're using X over the net WITHOUT ssh (the only place where IPv6 is necessarily needed, since everywhere else you can use private addresses), what are you thinking?!!!

It's WAY to slow without compressing, which means sending it through some kind of tunnel. Personally, I think it's way too slow anyway. RealVNC beats it for bandwidth usage and it's just a framebuffer, even compared to dxpc and lbxproxy (at least that has been my observation).

Re:Perhaps

[Phil Karn]

I agree, X is one of the less compelling applications for native IPv6 support given that just about everyone I know already tunnels it over an SSH connection. SSH has had IPv6 support for some time, so you can easily SSH into a machine with IPv6 and invoke an X session with the IPv4 connections on each end that never leave the local machines.

SSH tunneling works so well for X that I wouldn't even mind if all IP support were removed, as long as there was still a way (e.g., UNIX domain sockets) to connect the SSH daemons to the X server and client on each end.

That said, it's still a good thing for X to support IPv6, just in case someone wants to use it. Every Internet application should support both IPv4 and IPv6.

Higher Priorities

[Bonker]

Yeah, it'll be nice to have ipv6 in place when we need it, but I think a higher priority would be to speed up X's abysmal performance when compared to most other modern windowing subsystems out there, including Aqua and Windows' GUI.

The guy up above noted that there would be discussions on X needing to be replaced. I don't think X needs to be replaced it just needs to be more efficient. <blatant lack of application engineering knowledge> If *everything* has to go through a tcp/ip stack before it goes to the monitor, there should at the very least be some speed improvedments.</blatant lack of application engineering knowledge>

Remove head from ass

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest X is Version 11 Release 7; shouldn't you call it X11R7? I read the manpage: man X.

X is not from MIT. There is an MIT X CONSORTIUM that designs and publishes the standards for X.

To my understanding, there are many implementations of X:

X86
XFree86
XDirectFB
TinyX
Accelerated-X
M etro-X
WeirdX
PicoGUI (yes, PicoGUI provides X services too...server)

That's all I can remember. All trademarks have been infringed by me. I 0wn all commercial X servers unlawfully. Have a nice day :)

Need GUI's over HTTP

[Tablizer]

I have concluded that it is best if the GUI goes over regular HTTP. The red tape to get non-HTTP thru many companies is too great.

Although HTTP may not be the ideal protocol for GUI transport, I have concluded that it is satisfactory for most B-to-B biz forms if you "tune" it right.

My own pet draft GUI protocol, SCGUI, is an attempt to define such a standard. There is also XWT, but it is more fat-client than SCGUI, which attempts to define a non-Turing-complete protocol for improved security (although client-side T.C. scripting could be added).

All I want for Christmas...

[tupshin]

is simultaneous support for Xinerama and DRI.

Re:And I was just thinking

[tchuladdiass]

> So you're advocating security through obscurity? Well, I think everyone advocates this. If you don't beleive in the obscurity thing, then tell me, what is your credit card number, bank account, ATM pin code, Slashdot password, etc..., or would you rather keep them secure by making them obscure?